| FIFA on 08:25 - Aug 6 with 821 views | PawelAbbott |
If players can then "hand their notice in", then where does that leave transfer fees?
Why would a team pay £100m for someone who can then quit their contract and no longer be of any value to the club?
It could result in the clubs getting nothing and the players getting everything. Until clubs go out of business and there is no longer a need for players [Post edited 6 Aug 8:27]
|  | |  |
| FIFA on 08:38 - Aug 6 with 787 views | Whiterockin |
| FIFA on 08:25 - Aug 6 by PawelAbbott |
If players can then "hand their notice in", then where does that leave transfer fees?
Why would a team pay £100m for someone who can then quit their contract and no longer be of any value to the club?
It could result in the clubs getting nothing and the players getting everything. Until clubs go out of business and there is no longer a need for players [Post edited 6 Aug 8:27]
|
It's an interesting point. But if there were no transfer fees just players signing contracts that they were tied to for the length of the contract. Would there be a more level playing field, you could only spend on wages what you can afford. It would need a total restructuring but it could be the way forward. |  | | |
| FIFA on 09:50 - Aug 6 with 718 views | PawelAbbott |
Without transfer fees what is the incentive for a club to develop players? At the moment we have an academy in the hope that some of those players will become first team players or fetch a fee.
If there are no fees and a player can quit their contract at any point, then where is the return on investment? | | | |
| FIFA on 16:00 - Aug 6 with 603 views | SullutaCreturned |
| FIFA on 09:50 - Aug 6 by PawelAbbott |
Without transfer fees what is the incentive for a club to develop players? At the moment we have an academy in the hope that some of those players will become first team players or fetch a fee.
If there are no fees and a player can quit their contract at any point, then where is the return on investment? |
Maybe if you quit a contract without good reason the club could challenge it in court?
Just being unhappy or knowing someone else will pay you more isn't a valid reason to quit a fixed term contract...we need a lawyer! | | | |
| FIFA on 17:22 - Aug 6 with 543 views | Dr_Winston |
There's lots of things that FIFA do that might not stand up to a serious legal challenge. For example, the transfer window. Businesses restricted from recruiting employees at certain times of the year? People forbidden to change employers? You can see how a determined lawyer could cast doubt on that. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| FIFA on 20:11 - Aug 6 with 439 views | RodgerTheDodger |
| FIFA on 16:00 - Aug 6 by SullutaCreturned |
Maybe if you quit a contract without good reason the club could challenge it in court?
Just being unhappy or knowing someone else will pay you more isn't a valid reason to quit a fixed term contract...we need a lawyer! |
People make the mistake of forgetting that these are not contracts to supply, they are contracts of employment, and therefore hedged about with all manner of restrictions on what can and cannot be included.
In the normal world, you can't take someone on and force them to not move to a competitor for 3 years because you are paying out a lot of money to train them. A Court would laugh at you if you tried.
Being unhappy or getting a better offer are both very good reasons to quit a fixed term contract, it happens all the time with contractors in IT, and there are no legal consequences.
The only reason football players can't do this is because FIFA/EUFA/FA stop clubs from taking them on if they don't like the player's contractual situation. That is the very definition of a restrictive practice between employers. | | | |
| FIFA on 20:17 - Aug 6 with 429 views | RodgerTheDodger |
It always surprises me that the loan system has been allowed to stand for so long. It is clearly iniquitous that when a player completes his loan spell (where the parent club sent him), if he wants to stay there the parent club can stop him and insist he goes somewhere else. | | | |
| FIFA on 17:03 - Aug 7 with 209 views | SullutaCreturned |
| FIFA on 20:11 - Aug 6 by RodgerTheDodger |
People make the mistake of forgetting that these are not contracts to supply, they are contracts of employment, and therefore hedged about with all manner of restrictions on what can and cannot be included.
In the normal world, you can't take someone on and force them to not move to a competitor for 3 years because you are paying out a lot of money to train them. A Court would laugh at you if you tried.
Being unhappy or getting a better offer are both very good reasons to quit a fixed term contract, it happens all the time with contractors in IT, and there are no legal consequences.
The only reason football players can't do this is because FIFA/EUFA/FA stop clubs from taking them on if they don't like the player's contractual situation. That is the very definition of a restrictive practice between employers. |
Good post. I agree the rules are retrictive and unfair, in the normal world of work anyway. If a court would laugh then I'd have to ask why it hasn't been challenged?
We all remember the Bosman ruling, if it is so easy to challenge these rules, given Bosman, why hasnt it been done? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FIFA on 17:12 - Aug 7 with 194 views | Whiterockin |
| FIFA on 17:03 - Aug 7 by SullutaCreturned |
Good post. I agree the rules are retrictive and unfair, in the normal world of work anyway. If a court would laugh then I'd have to ask why it hasn't been challenged?
We all remember the Bosman ruling, if it is so easy to challenge these rules, given Bosman, why hasnt it been done? |
I think the rules are being challenged as per the original post. | | | |
| FIFA on 17:46 - Aug 7 with 167 views | RodgerTheDodger |
| FIFA on 17:03 - Aug 7 by SullutaCreturned |
Good post. I agree the rules are retrictive and unfair, in the normal world of work anyway. If a court would laugh then I'd have to ask why it hasn't been challenged?
We all remember the Bosman ruling, if it is so easy to challenge these rules, given Bosman, why hasnt it been done? |
A player who challenges the rules ends their career. No one has forgotten Bosman, he won in Court but his career was over - partly because he wasn't terribly good.
The recent ECJ case brought by Lassana Diarra, the Court partially found in his favour, but they didn't go as far as many thought they would. What they did was hand down a judgement that cleared a path for actions for damages, as we now see.
This action seems to be being brought by players at the end of their career, so they're not bothered about being blacklisted by clubs. I can see why the ECJ would prefer this route. If it dramatically changes the rules, as it might, that coming from a civil action be less disruptive than the ECJ nixing the whole contract system in football as unlawful.
What will happen? Dunarskme. It's a Court, anything can happen, especially when there have been no cases around this for thirty years. No guidance from the Courts for that long on what the law actually is tends to lead to nasty surprises when the Courts actually set out their decision. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
